The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-03-17
An Unsuccessful Attempt 10 Take
Alderman CIeary's Trial TO An.
other Court.

OthcE OOuEhs
NEW YORK, March 10 "A bold but
unsuccessful attempt was made today
to have the trial of Alderman Cleary,
which is now progressing before Judge
Barrett in the Coutt Of Oyer and Ter
miner, taken out of the hands of that
Judge and removed TO another court.
Counsel for Cleary, through John Vim
cent, made the application TO Judge
Patterson in the Supreme Court Cham
hers. In his decision the Judge said !:
81 have examined these papers, and 1t
appears that the case is actually on
trial. l decline to make the order, and
refer the application to the Justice
presiding at the Court OF Oyer and
Terminsr." Mr.. Vincent had applied
for stay of trial until an application
could be made to remove the trial to
some other county. In his affidavit
Mr.. Vincent set forth the circum-
stances in the trial of Jaehne, Nc
Qaade and O'Neil, and asserted that
the conduct OF Cleary's trial
had excited comment; editori-
ais in newspapers prejudicial 10
Cleary and all the members Of
the board of 1884 had betn printed.
He declared that few intelligent men
could be found to act as jurors who
had not expressed an opinion; that all
the Jurors at present in the box, ex-
cept four or five, were conversant. with
the case and had Impressions.
Many Jurors now in the box on ques-
lions submitted by the District At
toiney had been permitted to give
opinions on the Aldermen convicted,
and each had replied that they be-
lieved the verdicts just. Also, Mr..
Vincent quotes certain alleged re-
marks of Jsstice Barrett. He de.
clared that some of the jurors stated
that they had preiudices against
Oleary, and that they had Impressions
that it would require evidence to re-
move, thus carrying bias into the
Jury box. For these and many other
reasons Mr.. Vincent believed that il
was impossible for Clesry to get fair
trial before any jury in this county
Judge Patterson, However, refused to
grant the order.
Today's panel was exhausted with
out securing Juror for the vacant
seat. At the adjournment Of court
until tomorrow Justice Barrett called
all the lawyers about his desk, and {
long consultation ensued. Justice
Barrett informed Cleary's lawyers thai
their application to Justice Patterson
for change Of venue at time wher
their peremptory challenges were ex
hausted and the completion Of thu
Jury was imminent, appeared on i'll
face to be an attempt to evade trial, in
which view of the matter he though
it was his duty to commit the de
PENDANT as the motion and its denia
might create in Clesry's mind an un
Willingness to appear for trial.
Mr.. 5haier, of Oleary's counsel, sale
he would be personally respon sibl
for Cleary's appearance, and the de
tense would furnish half million o
money for his appearance from ds!
to day.
Mr.. Vincent, who made the applica
ton tn Justice Patterson, denied an!
intention on his part of disrespect 10
Justice Barrett, and said the motion
was made ont of form, merely to satisf
Cleary that all was being done tina
could be done for him. Justice Bal
rett said he would not commit hin
then. He would consider over nigh
and decide tomorrow, and Cleary wa
allowed his liberty.